New York City, N.Y., Sep 24, 2019 / 10:07 am (CNA).- In a video message Monday to the UN Climate Action Summit, Pope Francis stressed that climate change is linked to ethical decline and human degradation.
“The problem of climate change is related to issues of ethics, equity and social justice. The current situation of environmental degradation is connected with the human, ethical and social degradation that we experience every day,” Pope Francis said in the Spanish video message to the UN, published Sept. 23.
The pope called climate change “one of the most serious and worrying phenomena of our time.”
Pope Francis said that humanity is called to cultivate the moral qualities of “honesty, responsibility and courage” to face this global challenge.
He quested whether there is “a real political will” to “allocate greater human, financial and technological resources to mitigate the negative effects and climate change and to help the poorest and most vulnerable populations.”
“With the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015, the international community became aware of the urgency and need for a collective response to help build our common home. However, four years after that historic Agreement, we can see that the commitments made by States are still very ‘weak,’ and are far from achieving the objectives set,” he said.
“While the situation is not good and the planet is suffering, the window of opportunity is still open. We are still in time,” Francis added.
The pope called upon the UN to think about the meaning of current models of consumption and production and to place the economy at the service of the human person and peace building.
“Although the post-industrial period may well be remembered as one of the most irresponsible in history, nonetheless there is reason to hope that humanity at the dawn of the twenty-first century will be remembered for having generously shouldered its grave responsibilities,” Pope Francis said, quoting his 2015 environmental encyclical Laudato Si.
Swedish youth activist Greta Thunberg also addressed the UN Sept. 23. Pope Francis previously met Thunberg in April after one of his Wednesday general audiences.
“Thank you for standing up for the climate, for speaking the truth. It means a lot,” Thunberg told Pope Francis April 17.
The pope told the young activist “God bless you,” shook her hand, and encouraged her to continue her efforts, according to Vatican Media.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Phoenix, Ariz., Jun 26, 2018 / 02:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- An Arizona pharmacist is under investigation after refusing to fill a medical abortion prescription, citing ethical objections.
The case involves a 35-year-old woman named Nicole Arteaga, who w… […]
Thousands of pro-life advocates gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 1, 2021, in conjunction with oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. / Katie Yoder/CNA
Washington D.C., Dec 2, 2021 / 08:04 am (CNA).
Anna Del Duca and daughter, Frances, woke up at 5 a.m. Wednesday morning to brave the 30-degree weather outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. They arrived hours before oral arguments began in the highly-anticipated abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The case, which involves a Mississippi law restricting most abortions after 15 weeks, challenges two landmark decisions: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe in 1992.
“We’re looking forward to the end of Roe versus Wade in our country,” Anna, who drove from Pittsburgh Tuesday night, told CNA. In her hands, she held a sign reading, “I regret my abortion.”
Anna Del Duca (right) and her daughter, Frances, traveled from Pittsburgh to attend a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, in conjunction with oral arguments for the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. Katie Yoder/CNA
“I would like to use my testimony to be a blessing to others,” she said, so that “others will choose life or those who have regretted abortion or had an abortion would turn to Jesus.”
Anna remembered having an abortion when she was just 19. Today, she and her daughter run a group called Restorers of Streets to Dwell In Pittsburgh that offers help to women seeking healing after abortion.
Anna and Frances were among thousands of Americans who rallied outside the Supreme Court before, during, and after the oral arguments. To accommodate them, law enforcement closed the street in front of the court. Capitol police also placed fencing in the space in front of the building in an attempt to physically separate rallies held by abortion supporters and pro-lifers.
At 21-weeks pregnant, pro-life speaker Alison Centofante emceed the pro-life rally, called, “Empower Women Promote Life.” The event featured a slew of pro-life women of diverse backgrounds and numerous politicians.
“It’s funny, there were so many diverse speakers today that the only unifying thread was that we want to protect preborn children,” Centofante told CNA. They included Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Catholics, agnostics, atheists, women who chose life, and women who regretted their abortions, she said.
She recognized women there, including Aimee Murphy, as people who are not the typical “cookie cutter pro-lifer.”
Aimee Murphy, 32, founder of pro-life group Rehumanize International, arrived at the Supreme Court around 6:30 a.m. She drove from Pittsburgh the night before. Her sign read, “Queer Latina feminist rape survivor against abortion.”“At Rehumanize International, we oppose all forms of aggressive violence,” she told CNA. “Even as a secular and non-partisan organization, we understand that abortion is the most urgent cause that we must stand against in our modern day and age because it takes on average over 800,000 lives a year.”
She also had a personal reason for attending.
“When I was 16 years old, I was raped and my rapist then threatened to kill me if I didn’t have an abortion,” she revealed.
“It was when he threatened me that I felt finally a solidarity with unborn children and I understood then that, yeah, the science told me that a life begins at conception, but that I couldn’t be like my abusive ex and pass on the violence and oppression of abortion to another human being — that all that I would be doing in having an abortion would be telling my child, ‘You are an inconvenience to me and to my future, therefore I’m going to kill you,’ which is exactly the same thing that my rapist was telling me when he threatened to kill me.”
On the other side of the police fence, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Abortion Access Coalition and NARAL Pro-Choice America participated in another rally. Yellow balloons printed with the words “BANS OFF OUR BODIES” escaped into the sky. Several pro-choice demonstrators declined to speak with CNA.
Voices clashed in the air as people, the majority of whom were women, spoke into their respective microphones at both rallies. Abortion supporters stressed bodily autonomy, while pro-lifers recognized the humanity of the unborn child. Chants arose from both sides at different points, from “Whose choice? My choice!” to “Hey hey, ho ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go!”
At 10 a.m., the pro-life crowd sudddenly went silent as the oral arguments began and the rally paused temporarily as live audio played through speakers.
Hundreds of students from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, traveled to Washington, D.C. for a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, in conjunction with oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case. Katie Yoder/CNA
During the oral arguments, students from Liberty University knelt in prayer. One student estimated that more than a thousand students from the school made the more than 3-hour trip from Lynchburg, Virginia.
“Talking about our faith is one thing, but actually acting upon it is another,” he said. “We have to be the hands and feet of Jesus Christ. So to me this is part of doing that.”
Sister Mary Karen, who has been with the Sisters of Life for 21 years, also stressed the importance of prayer. She drove from New York earlier that morning because, she said, she felt drawn to attend. She came, she said, to pray for the country and promote the dignity of a human person.
“Our culture is post-abortive,” she explained. “So many people have suffered and the loss of human life is so detrimental, just not knowing that we have value and are precious and sacred.”
Theresa Bonopartis, of Harrison, New York, was among the pro-life demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021. She runs a nonprofit group called Entering Canaan that ministers to women and others wounded by abortion. Katie Yoder/CNA
She stood next to Theresa Bonopartis, who traveled from Harrison, New York, and ministers to women and others wounded by abortion.
“I’ve been fighting abortion for 30 years at least,” she told CNA.
Her ministry, called Entering Canaan, began with the Sisters of Life and is observing its 25th anniversary this year. It provides retreats for women, men, and even siblings of aborted babies.
Abortion is personal for Bonopartis, who said she had a coerced abortion when she was just 17.
“I was kicked out of the house by my father and then coerced into getting an abortion,” she said. “Pretty much cut me off from everything, and that’s something people don’t really talk about … they make it try to seem like it’s a woman’s right, it’s a free choice. It’s all this other stuff, but many women are coerced in one way or another.”
She guessed that she was 14 or 15 weeks pregnant at the time.
“I saw my son. I had a saline abortion, so I saw him, which I always considered a blessing because it never allowed me to deny what abortion was,” she said. Afterward, she said she struggled with self-esteem issues, hating herself, guilt, shame, and more. Then, she found healing.
“I know what that pain is like, I know what that experience is like, and you know that you can get past it,” she said. “You just want to be able to give that message to other people, that they’re able to heal.”
Residents of Mississippi, where the Dobbs v. Jackson case originated, also attended.
Marion, who declined to provide her last name, drove from Mississippi to stand outside the Supreme Court. She said she was in her early 20s when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
“At the time, of course, I could care less,” she said. Since then, she had a change of heart.
“We were the generation that allowed it,” she said, “and so we are the generation who will help close that door and reverse it.”
Marion, who declined to provide her last name, was among those who attended a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021, from Mississippi, where the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case originated. Katie Yoder/CNA
The crowd at the pro-life rally included all ages, from those who had witnessed Roe to bundled-up babies, children running around, and college students holding up homemade signs.
One group of young friends traveled across the country to stand outside the Supreme Court. They cited their faith and family as reasons for attending.
Mathilde Steenepoorte, 19, from Green Bay, Wisconsin, identified herself as “very pro-life” in large part because of her younger brother with Down syndrome. She said she was saddened by the abortion rates of unborn babies dianosed with Down syndrome.
Juanito Estevez, from Freeport, a village on Long Island, New York, at a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021. Katie Yoder/CNA
Juanito Estevez, from Freeport, a village on Long Island, New York, arrived Tuesday. He woke up at 6 a.m. to arrive at the Supreme Court with a crucifix in hand.
“I believe that God is the giver of life and we don’t have the right [to decide] whether a baby should live or die,” he said.
He also said that he believed women have been lied to about abortion.
“We say it’s their right, and there’s a choice,” he said. When girls tell him “I have the right,” his response, he said, is to ask back, “You have the right for what?”
Mallory Finch, from Charlotte, North Carolina, was among the pro-life demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021.
Mallory Finch, from Charlotte, North Carolina, also woke up early but emphasized “it was worth it.” A pro-life podcast host, she called abortion a “human-rights issue.”
“I hope that it overturns Roe,” she said of the case, “but that doesn’t mean that our job as pro-lifers is done. It makes this, really, just the beginning.”
A participant in a Women’s March event Jan. 18, 2020, in San Francisco holds a “Pass the Equal Rights Amendment” sign while marching. / Credit: Sundry Photography/Shutterstock
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Mar 22, 2024 / 18:30 pm (CNA).
Nevada Judge Erika Ballou ruled this week that the state must include abortion in its Medicaid program.
This ruling effectively mandates Nevada taxpayers fund abortion. It is unclear whether the state will appeal the decision.
Ballou did not give any explanation for her Tuesday ruling, only issuing a one-page order that granted a local pro-abortion group’s request to strike down the Medicaid restrictions.
The pro-abortion group, called “Silver State Hope Fund,” which provides grants for women seeking abortions, applauded the ruling, calling it a “historic day for Nevada.”
Represented by ACLU Nevada, Silver State Hope Fund filed a suit against the state’s Health and Human Services Department in August 2023. The suit argued that the state was violating the ERA through its so-called Medicaid “coverage ban” on abortion. ACLU Nevada argued that not including abortion in Medicaid “disadvantages women because of their sex, including their reproductive capabilities.”
According to reporting by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, attorneys for the state of Nevada argued that the state has “a legitimate interest in efficiently utilizing Medicaid funds — both federal and state — to maximize the services provided to Medicaid recipients” and that “if Medicaid were to cover elective abortions, it would have to divert state money from covering other services because it cannot use federal matching dollars to pay for elective abortions.”
All funding for abortion would have to come out of the state’s budget because of the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition of federal tax dollars from being used for abortion.
ACLU attorney Rebecca Chan also celebrated the ruling, saying in a statement: “We are relieved that the court correctly recognized the severe harms of Nevada’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion, which directly violates the recently passed state Equal Rights Amendment.”
“Every person, regardless of their income level or insurance source, deserves the power to make personal medical decisions during pregnancy, including abortion,” she said.
The Nevada ERA, passed in a referendum vote in 2022, added a section to the Nevada Constitution that said: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.”
There is an ongoing national push to add a similar version of the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, something the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has firmly opposed. The bishops have voiced concerns that the language could be used to claim a constitutional right to an abortion or could be used to infringe on religious liberty.
In 2023 Arlington Bishop Michael Burbidge, chair of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement speaking out against this version of the ERA.
“The Catholic faith teaches that women and men are created with equal dignity, and we support that being reflected in law. The proposed ‘Equal Rights Amendment,’ however, would likely create a sweeping new nationwide right to abortion at any stage, at taxpayer expense, and eliminate even modest protections for women’s health and the lives of preborn children,” he said.
Burbidge added that the measure “could also pose grave problems for women’s privacy and athletic and other opportunities, and negatively impact religious freedom.”
When and if the dust settles, say in a few decades or a century, HISTORY might well record Pope Francis’ priority on the natural ecology as a sort of Galileo Moment not bungled too much as in the past. Today the Pope urges actions “to mitigate the negative effects and climate change and to help the poorest and most vulnerable populations.”
Yes, mitigate. But in the more cobbled-together “Laudato Si” (2015) we find less coherent language about BOTH “adapting” (n. 170) AND “reversing” (n. 175) climate change. Today a more nuanced grasp, perhaps, about multiple causation, man-made and otherwise.
On the other hand, history might also note the unabated demolition of the “human ecology” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 1993)—especially the undermining of MARRIAGE and the FAMILY—neither reversed nor even mitigated as by the placement of homosexual activists in positions of influence and power even within the Church, e.g., the ravaged John Paul II Institute.
So, of the multiple crises of the 21st century—yes, the plate runneth over.
And thus the apparent temptation to split the difference—to average-out all the combined messaging about the natural AND human ecologies. John Paul II called this law of averages—-the COMBINED “integral human ecology” (?)—- “proportionalism” and found it morally wanting (Veritatis Splendor).
Splitting the difference—as between the natural ecology and the sanctuary of the human ecology—didn’t count for much, either, in the time of the wise king, Solomon. Solomon did NOT split the disputed and whole child (as with Amazonia’s return to “mother nature”?) And as for today’s “poorest and most vulnerable populations,” the 19th-century runaway slave, Jim, in Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn,” got it, but also could see through the law of averages. . .
Finn said something both climactic and climatic about Solomon: “De’ spute warn’t ’bout a half a chile, de ’spute was ’bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a ’spute bout a whole chile wid a half a chile, doan’ know enough to come in out’n de rain.”
What’s the point of fighting earthly pollution when we ignore the moral and spiritual pollution that poses a more serious threat not only to our lives but our eternal souls?
Courage to tell the truth to power structures can move mountains.
When and if the dust settles, say in a few decades or a century, HISTORY might well record Pope Francis’ priority on the natural ecology as a sort of Galileo Moment not bungled too much as in the past. Today the Pope urges actions “to mitigate the negative effects and climate change and to help the poorest and most vulnerable populations.”
Yes, mitigate. But in the more cobbled-together “Laudato Si” (2015) we find less coherent language about BOTH “adapting” (n. 170) AND “reversing” (n. 175) climate change. Today a more nuanced grasp, perhaps, about multiple causation, man-made and otherwise.
On the other hand, history might also note the unabated demolition of the “human ecology” (John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 1993)—especially the undermining of MARRIAGE and the FAMILY—neither reversed nor even mitigated as by the placement of homosexual activists in positions of influence and power even within the Church, e.g., the ravaged John Paul II Institute.
So, of the multiple crises of the 21st century—yes, the plate runneth over.
And thus the apparent temptation to split the difference—to average-out all the combined messaging about the natural AND human ecologies. John Paul II called this law of averages—-the COMBINED “integral human ecology” (?)—- “proportionalism” and found it morally wanting (Veritatis Splendor).
Splitting the difference—as between the natural ecology and the sanctuary of the human ecology—didn’t count for much, either, in the time of the wise king, Solomon. Solomon did NOT split the disputed and whole child (as with Amazonia’s return to “mother nature”?) And as for today’s “poorest and most vulnerable populations,” the 19th-century runaway slave, Jim, in Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn,” got it, but also could see through the law of averages. . .
Finn said something both climactic and climatic about Solomon: “De’ spute warn’t ’bout a half a chile, de ’spute was ’bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a ’spute bout a whole chile wid a half a chile, doan’ know enough to come in out’n de rain.”
What’s the point of fighting earthly pollution when we ignore the moral and spiritual pollution that poses a more serious threat not only to our lives but our eternal souls?